DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/877,944, filed on July 31, 2022. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated September 17, 2025, Applicant filed remarks on March 17, 2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby maintained in light of Applicants amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed March 17, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed March 17, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the background section of the current application, current technology doesn’t enable a user to authorize time-off for a skill to increase agents’ digital availability (see p. 1, Applicant Remarks).
The current application provides a technical solution that may provide a flexible ‘time off model’ where agents may be able to take breaks from certain skills that require more focus and attention and in parallel ensure work continuity in the contact center.
Applicant cites pertinent parts of claim 1 (see p. 2, Applicant Remarks).
The Applicant asserts that these claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. Moreover, the Applicant asserts that Claim 1 as a whole, integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, by sending the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration, to a time-off recommendation module to forward the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration to one or more contact-center modules. The one or more contact-center modules is a routing engine, and the routing engine is configured to check the agents database before routing an inbound-interaction to the agent, and when the inbound-interaction requires an agent with a specified skill, the routing engine is not routing the inbound-interaction to an agent that has the specified skill marked as ‘unavailable’. Thus, improving the routing and handling of communications between customers and agents for the contact center.
Accordingly, the Applicant asserts that all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 19 are allowable. Claims 2-14 and 16-18 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and therefore include all the limitations of this claim. Therefore, Applicant asserts that claims 2-14 and 16-18, are likewise allowable. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections to independent claims 1 and 19 and to claims 2-14 and 16-18, depended therefrom.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Applicant merely restates claim language with the general assertion that the limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner find Applicants arguments regarding the specification and pending claim language is directed towards an improvement to an existing business process (e.g. schedule/dispatching management) that is not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment, thus failing to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The pertinent limitations of claim 1 that Applicant has highlighted, amount to both insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea (i.e., analyzing time-off request to determine authorization and making routing decisions). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner maintains the claim is directed to an abstract idea. As stated in the previous Office Action, Applicant has not identified any limitations in the claimed invention that shows or submits that the technology used is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, Applicant states the current application provides a flexible ‘time off model’ where agents are able to take breaks from certain skills that require more focus and attention and in parallel ensure work continuity in the contact center. It optimizes agent availability by authorizing time-off as a skill level and increases digital adoption and agent availability for digital skills.
As to Krucek, Krucek provides a system for predicting slack periods. The system predicts and detects time intervals for an entity, e.g., a contact center, where the amount of available work, e.g., call volume, is less than what can be handled by the number of employees, e.g., agents, that are scheduled to work during the time intervals.
Instead, the current application empowers the agent to request time off from specific skills they wish to take a break from. The agents can continue working on other skills they prefer, such as digital interactions, e.g., Twitter®, Facebook®, LinkedIn®. The current application allows agents to decide which skills they want to focus on, thus, providing greater flexibility and autonomy.
Therefore, in current application no slack period notifications are sent to agents, and the agents are not assigned additional tasks during slack periods. Instead, in current application the agents can focus on other preferred skills.
As to Daye, Daye merely provides dynamic skill certification. Daye addresses the problem of inaccurate or static agent skill data affecting routing decisions. It infers agent skills passively based on historical request handling by the mechanism of threshold-based promotion of skills from uncertified to certified. Agent skills are continuously learned and updated based on performance to the agent profile and routing eligibility. Thus, improving routing decisions.
Daye merely recites in paragraph [0022] an arrangement of backup agents with no certificate in a required skill when there are no available primary agents and paragraphs [0025] merely describes determining a required set of skills based on gathered information and then sending to a suitable agent having that set of skills (see p. 4, Applicant Remarks).
Instead, in the current application, if an agent is unavailable for a skill, the system inherently excludes the agent that is marked as unavailable for a specific skill and it does not route interactions for that skill to the agent, ensuring seamless operation without the additional complexity of Daye. In other words, the current application relates to the agent as if the agent doesn’t possess the skill at the time of routing without the dynamic reconfiguration of the routing logic or submission of modification requests as Daye.
Moreover, as previously argued, the current application differentiates between skills based on interactions volume in the contact center. For example, if there is a low volume of voice calls, the agent’s time-off request for voice skills will be accepted, allowing them to focus on digital skills with higher volumes. It ensures agents can work on skills they prefer, reducing stress and improving productivity. It provides agents with flexibility to manage their interactions within their schedule. Thus, it allows agents to take breaks from overwhelming tasks, such as back-to-back voice calls and focus on other interactions like digital channels.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully asserts that this rejection should be withdrawn.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner finds Krucek sufficiently teaches the skill-based time-off request limitations, as well as, a routing database that includes data useful in making routing decisions, Daye improves upon Krucek by disclosing the routing of inbound-interactions based on skill availably for a specific agent. For at least these reasons, Examiner finds the combination of Krucek in view of Day is sufficient in teaching the aforementioned limitation.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that Daye and Krucek are nonanalogous, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are directed towards a computerized-method and claim 19 is directed towards a computerized-system, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite analyzing time-off request to determine authorization and making routing decisions.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, for each skill of the one or more skills in the agent skill-based time-off request: (ii) calculate an agent time-off eligibility-quotient, wherein when the agent time-off eligibility-quotient is below a preconfigured quotient-threshold the agent skill-based time-off request is rejected, and wherein when the agent time-off eligibility-quotient is above the preconfigured quotient-threshold, operating an approver module to yield an authorization decision; and check the agents before routing an inbound-interaction to the agent, and when the inbound- interaction requires an agent with a specified skill, not routing the inbound-interaction to an agent that has the specified skill marked as 'unavailable' constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a user interface in a computerized-device, various, routing engine and agent database modules does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 19 recites certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites (i) receiving an agent skill-based time-off request having one or more skills and a duration from a User Interface (UI) in a computerized-device of an agent, where the agent has two or more associated skills; and (iii) sending the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration to a time-off recommendation module to forward the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration to one or more contact-center modules, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a user interface in a computerized-device, agent-sill based time-off module, recommendation module, contact-center modules, a routing engine and agent database at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The computerized-system comprising a memory to store databases thereon, processors recited in claim 19 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including user interface in a computerized-device, agent-sill based time-off module, recommendation module and contact-center modules and computerized-system comprising a memory to store databases thereon, processors amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 10, 11 and 18 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8 and 14 recite limitations that are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 13 recites additional elements that amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2-6, 12, 14, 16, 17 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea constituting methods based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Claim 9 recite limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mathematical concepts, specifically mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations. Therefore claims 2-14 and 16-18 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0201246 [hereinafter Krucek], and further in view of Daye et al., U.S. Publication No. 2011/0096919 [hereinafter Daye].
Referring to Claim 1, Krucek teaches:
A computerized-method for authorizing time-off for a skill to increase agents digital availability, the computerized-method comprising:
(i) receiving an agent skill-based time-off request having one or more skills and a duration from a User Interface (UI) in a computerized-device of an agent, where the agent has two or more associated skills (Krucek, [0026]), “the slack predictor 220 may determine intervals of the plurality of intervals where the number of agents 120 assigned to the interval for a queue exceed the number of agents 120 needed to meet the service level goals associated with the queue based on the amount of work for the interval predicted by the forecast 216. Alternatively or additionally, instead of determining slack periods per queue per interval, the slack predictor 220 may determine skill periods per agent group, per contact center 150, or per set of agent skills”; (Krucek, [0031]), “After detecting or predicting a slack period, the slack predictor 220 may send a request 246 to the administrator 290 asking the administrator 290 to either confirm or reject the slack period”; (Krucek, [0018]-[0019]), “… A slack period is one or more intervals of time where the number of agents 120 assigned to work for the contact center 150, or on a particular queue, exceeds the number of agents 120 that are needed to meet one or more service level goals for the contact center 150 or queue 120… Once the slack periods are predicted, rather than some of agents 120 be idle or underutilized during the slack period, the slack engine 210 may notify the agents 120 scheduled to work during the slack period and may offer them incentives to work on one or more QM tasks during the slack period”; (Krucek, [0023]), “a slack period may be predicted for an entire contact center 150, may be predicted on a queue by queue basis, or may predicted with respect to a particular agent group or set of agent skills”; (Krucek, [0092]), “agent skill data”;
for each skill of the one or more skills in the agent skill-based time-off request:
(ii) operating an agent-skill-based time-off module to calculate an agent time-off eligibility-quotient, wherein when the agent time-off eligibility-quotient is below a preconfigured quotient-threshold the agent skill-based time-off request is rejected, and wherein when the agent time-off eligibility-quotient is above the preconfigured quotient-threshold, operating an approver module to yield an authorization decision (Krucek, [0034]), “each predicted slack period may be associated with a confidence value that indicates how confident the slack predictor 220 is that the predicted slack period is correct. In such embodiments, rather than have the administrator 290 approve or confirm each slack period, the slack predictor 220 may only send requests 246 for slack periods whose associated confidence is below a threshold. The threshold value may be set by the administrator 290”; (Krucek, [0051]-[0056]), “The slack period may be a forecast slack period and may be detected by the slack predictor 220 using one or more slack rules. The slack period may be associated with a confidence value… whether the confidence is greater than a threshold is determined. The determination may be made by the slack predictor 220… confirmation is requested. The confirmation may be requested by the slack predictor 220 sending a request 246 to the administrator 290… whether confirmation was received is determined. The determination may be made by the slack predictor…”; (Krucek, [0059]-[0065]; [0074]-[0080]);
(iii) sending the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration to a time-off recommendation module to forward the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration to one or more contact-center modules (Krucek, [0031]), “The request 246 may also include information about the slack period such as its predicted length, severity, and the particular slack rules that were used to predict the slack period. If the administrator 290 approves the slack period they may provide a confirmation 255 to the slack predictor 220, else the administrator 290 may provide a rejection 256”; (Krucek, [0035]-[0036]), “The notification 245 may be sent to every agent 120 scheduled to work during an interval covered by the slack period, or to every agent 120 scheduled to work on a particular queue and interval covered by the slack period… Each notification 245 sent to an agent 120 may include identifiers of one or more tasks 257 that the agent 120 could complete during the slack period”; (Krucek, [0014]; [0021]; [0056]),
wherein the one or more contact-center modules is a routing engine (Krucek, [0090]), “The contact center 150 may include servers, databases, and other components. In particular, the contact center 150 may include, but is not limited to, a routing server… and one or more databases for routing”; (Krucek, [0092]), “the routing server may use statistical data from reporting/dashboard information and a routing database to the route SIP request message. A response may be sent to the media server directing it to route the interaction to a target agent 120. The routing database may include: … agent skills data…or any other data that may be useful in making routing decisions”;
Krucek teaches using an automated call distribution to manage the flow of interactions by routing and queuing them to the most appropriate agent (see par. 0091) and a routing server and routing databased that includes agent skills data (see par. 0092), but Krucek does not explicitly teach:
wherein the routing engine is configured to check the agents database before routing an inbound-interaction to the agent, and when the inbound- interaction requires an agent with a specified skill, the routing engine is not routing the inbound-interaction to an agent that has the specified skill marked as 'unavailable'.
However Daye teaches:
wherein the routing engine is configured to check the agents database before routing an inbound-interaction to the agent, and when the inbound- interaction requires an agent with a specified skill, the routing engine is not routing the inbound-interaction to an agent that has the specified skill marked as 'unavailable' (Daye, [0025]), “if agent service is requested… skill-based router 112 determines a skill set suitable to provide the service requested by the service request 212. At block 214, skill-based router 112 then routes the service request for servicing to an agent terminal 132 of an agent associated by agent database 120 with the skill set determined at block 212… Absent the availability of an agent possessing certification in the skill set, at block 214 skill-based router 112 may alternatively route the service request to backup agent outside of the skill group 130 comprising agents having certification in the skill set”; (Daye, [0022]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the routing in Krucek to include the routing and inbound-interaction limitations as taught by Daye. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of routing and handling of communications between customers and agents for the contact center in Krucek (see par. 0014) to efficiently include the results of routing service requests based at least in part upon passive skill certification of agents (see Daye par. 0002).
Referring to Claim 3, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches:
wherein the duration details comprising start date and time and end date and time (Krucek, [0029]), “Intraday slack periods may be slack periods that are predicted for a current day on a real-time or near real-time basis. The slack predictor 220 may predict an intraday slack period for an interval using performance statistics 217 that are collected about the contact center 150”, Examiner considers a period to teach a start and end time; (Krucek, [0023]; [0030]; [0057]; [0060]; [0073]).
Referring to Claim 7, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches:
wherein the approver module is further comprising: retrieving the agent-requirement-count for each schedule of one or more schedules in the duration and the agent requirement threshold for each schedule from an agents database (Krucek, [0027]), “. The slack rules may be based on criterial such as how many excess agents 120 are required for an interval to be considered part of a slack period or what percentage of the interval is required to be overstaffed for the interval to be considered part of a slack period. Each queue may use different slack rules, and/or different slack rules may be used depending on the time of the day associated with the interval… a slack rule that matches short slack periods may be: staffing is >=X staffing (default X=5) for a 30 minute period. As another example, a slack rule that matches long slack periods may be: staffing is >=X staffing (default X=5) for X % (default X=75%) of an interval for >than a 30 minute period”; (Krucek, [0032]-[0033]).
Referring to Claim 8, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches:
wherein when the decision is time-off approval for the skill, the computerized-method is further comprising sending an approval-notification by an approval notification module to be presented via a UI on a display unit associate to the computerized-device of the agent (Krucek, [0035]), “The notification engine 230 may send notifications 245 to one or more agents 120 in response to a predicted (and confirmed) slack period. The notification 245 may be an electronic message (e.g., email or SMS) and may be sent to each agent 120 associated with the slack period”; (Krucek, [0015]), “The agents 120 may utilize devices, such as but not limited to, work stations, desktop computers, laptops, telephones, a mobile smartphone and/or a tablet”.
Referring to Claim 12, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim.1. Krucek further teaches:
wherein the agent skill-based time-off request is forwarded to a supervisor for approval when the eligibility-quotient is below the preconfigured quotient-threshold (Krucek, [0034]), “rather than have the administrator 290 approve or confirm each slack period, the slack predictor 220 may only send requests 246 for slack periods whose associated confidence is below a threshold. The threshold value may be set by the administrator 290, for example”; (Krucek, [0075]).
Referring to Claim 13, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches:
wherein the one or more contact-center modules include at least one of: (i) supervisor dashboard; (ii) reporting generator; and (iii) scheduling engine (Krucek, [0094]), “Reporting/dashboards are tools used to track and manage the performance of agents, teams, departments, systems and processes within the contact center. Reports are presented in narrative, graphical or tabular formats. Reports can be created on a historical or real-time basis, depending on the data collected by the contact center applications. Dashboards typically include widgets, gadgets, gauges, meters, switches, charts and graphs that allow role-based monitoring of agent, queue and contact center performance”; (Krucek, [0017]), “] The contact center 150 may include one or both of a workforce management (“WFM”) application 154 and a quality management (“QM”) application 155. The WFM application 154 may generate forecasts and schedules for the contact center 150 and the agents 120 and may ensure that the contact center 150 complies with all laws and regulations regarding agent 120 work hours”.
Referring to Claim 16, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches:
wherein the operating of the agent-skill-based time-off module, is after one or more preconfigured system validations are satisfied and wherein the agent skill-based time-off request is rejected when one or more preconfigured system validations are not satisfied (Krucek, [0032]), “The received confirmation 255 or rejection 256 may be used by the slack predictor 220 to update one or more tolerances related to the slack rules that predicted the associated slack period. For example, if a slack rule such as “staffing is overstaffed >=5 staffing for a 30 minute period” was used to predict the slack period that received a rejection 256, the slack predictor 220 may make the rule more restrictive by increasing the number of overstaffed agents 120 to 6 from 5, or by increasing the duration from 30 to 35 minutes”; (Krucek, [0027]-[0028]; [0032]; [0017]).
Referring to Claim 17, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches:
wherein the operating of the agent-skill-based time-off module, is before one or more preconfigured system validations are satisfied and wherein the agent skill-based time-off request is rejected when one or more preconfigured system validations are not satisfied (Krucek, [0027]), “The slack predictor 220 may further predict slack periods using one or more slack rules. The slack rules may be based on criterial such as how many excess agents 120 are required for an interval to be considered part of a slack period or what percentage of the interval is required to be overstaffed for the interval to be considered part of a slack period. Each queue may use different slack rules, and/or different slack rules may be used depending on the time of the day associated with the interval. Depending on the embodiment, the slack rules may be set by a user or administrator 290”; (Krucek, [0028]; [0032]; [0017]).
Referring to Claim 18, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claims 16. Krucek further teaches:
wherein the one or more preconfigured system validations are selected from at least one of: (i) the duration of the agent skill-based time-off request is not in a period that has been configured as a period when a high number of interactions is expected; (ii) a preconfigured first-quota for all scheduled agents for agent skill- based time-off requests has not been reached in a first-preconfigured period; (iii) a preconfigured second-quota for the agent for agent skill-based time-off requests per a second- preconfigured period has not been reached; (iv) excess number of agents for the skill in the duration of the agent skill-based time-off request (Krucek, [0026]-[0028]), “the slack predictor 220 may determine intervals of the plurality of intervals where the number of agents 120 assigned to the interval for a queue exceed the number of agents 120 needed to meet the service level goals associated with the queue based on the amount of work for the interval predicted by the forecast 216. Alternatively or additionally, instead of determining slack periods per queue per interval, the slack predictor 220 may determine skill periods per agent group, per contact center 150, or per set of agent skills…The slack rules may be based on criterial such as how many excess agents 120 are required for an interval to be considered part of a slack period or what percentage of the interval is required to be overstaffed for the interval to be considered part of a slack period. Each queue may use different slack rules, and/or different slack rules may be used depending on the time of the day associated with the interval. Depending on the embodiment, the slack rules may be set by a user or administrator 290…a slack rule that matches short slack periods may be: staffing is >=X staffing (default X=5) for a 30 minute period. As another example, a slack rule that matches long slack periods may be: staffing is >=X staffing (default X=5) for X % (default X=75%) of an interval for >than a 30 minute period”; (Krucek, [0032]).
Referring to Claim 19, Krucek teaches:
A computerized-system for authorizing time-off for a skill to increase agents digital availability, the computerized-system comprising:
a memory to store one or more databases thereon, one or more processors (Krucek, [0084]; [0087]), said one or more processors are configured to:
Claim 19 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0201246 [hereinafter Krucek], in view of Daye et al., U.S. Publication No. 2011/0096919 [hereinafter Daye], and further in view of Swierz, III et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0215578 [hereinafter Swierz].
Referring to Claim 2, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek teaches providing real-time status information about the availability of each person in the network (see par. 0093), but Krucek does not explicitly teach:
wherein said approver module comprising:
(i) calculating a scheduled-agent-availability for one or more schedules in the duration; (ii) marking the authorization decision as 'approved' when the scheduled-agent-availability is marked as 'on'; and (iii) marking the authorization decision as 'rejected' when the scheduled-agent- availability is marked as 'off", wherein when the authorization decision is marked as 'approved' marking the skill of the agent as 'unavailable' in an agents database with details of the duration and wherein when the authorization decision is marked as 'rejected', sending a deny notification with details of the skill and duration to the computerized-device of the agent.
However Swierz teaches:
wherein said approver module comprising:
(i) calculating a scheduled-agent-availability for one or more schedules in the duration (Swierz, [0061]), “Scheduling function may utilize a number of criteria … of identifying appropriate staff and assigning staff…For instance, "Auto Suggest/Auto Schedule" criteria may be used and may comprise a combination of system filters and calculations… the system evaluates staff and determines the most qualified staff based on: staff filters; availability; skill set… "Availability" may be used to determine which staff members have available work hours for the time being scheduled. "Skill Set" may be used to identify those staff members who have the skills/specialties/expertise necessary to complete the scheduled item”; (Swierz, [0066]);
(ii) marking the authorization decision as 'approved' when the scheduled-agent-availability is marked as 'on'; and (iii) marking the authorization decision as 'rejected' when the scheduled-agent- availability is marked as 'off" (Swierz, [0080]), “Staff Dashboard Schedule portlet shows all of the items assigned to an individual, or manager, in a day layout… FIG. 40, Scheduled Benefit Requests allows a staff member to enter a benefit request and it is electronically routed to the Supervisor's dashboard, the supervisor then opens the request and approves/denies the request. The staff making the request is then notified via a pop up message showing them whether the request was accepted or denied”; (Swierz, [0083]), “FIG. 50, an exemplary Manage Staff screen shot is shown illustrating the functionality of the "Schedules" tab, which relates to the scheduling aspect of the present invention and enables firms to assign and manage staff based on various data, including skill areas of expertise, skill or other performance ratings, skill sets, and real-time availability”; (Swierz, [0072]), “PMS includes "digital dashboard" functionality that provides real-time status information at employee, firm, client, and staff levels. PMS integrates workflow processes so that data in other programs may be automatically captured as work progresses and updated in the PMS”; (Swierz, [0073]),
wherein when the authorization decision is marked as 'approved' marking the skill of the agent as 'unavailable' in an agents database with details of the duration and wherein when the authorization decision is marked as 'rejected', sending a deny notification with details of the skill and duration to the computerized-device of the agent (Swierz, [0067]), “The scheduling function may also include a "Resources Request Process" with which users may request time, such as benefit related time, comp time, etc., and the system may reflect the request as an "unapproved" Scheduled Time item that is posted into the calendars. In one alternative, it is only tentatively shown on the calendar or may not be incorporated into the calendar until approved, such as by a partner, HR person or manager. Requested Benefit Time example: if a staff member wanted to take vacation time for a specific time period, they could enter unapproved scheduled time that could later be approved and posted to the calendars by manager. This time may or may not show up as a conflict to other scheduling events”; (Swierz, [0080]), “The staff making the request is then notified via a pop up message showing them whether the request was accepted or denied”; (Swierz, [0053]), “Notifications Tab”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified real time status in Krucek to include the availability limitations as taught by Swierz. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of predicting and detecting time intervals for an entity to perform QM tasks during the slack periods in Krucek (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of processing staff and engagement related data for use in tracking availability, expertise, experience, performance and other staff criteria and engagement related data and for managing staffing decisions (see Swierz par. 0002).
Referring to Claim 14, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 13. Krucek teaches slack periods may be displayed as events in the calendars of supervisors and may identify the agents associated with each slack period (see par. 0038), but Krucek does not explicitly teach:
wherein the supervisor dashboard presents each pending agent skill-based time-off request and each approved or rejected agent skill-based time-off request.
However Swierz teaches:
wherein the supervisor dashboard presents each pending agent skill-based time-off request and each approved or rejected agent skill-based time-off request (Swierz, [0012]), “Staff Workflow and Management (SWM) aspect of the present invention enables users to quickly and easily manage and track staff benefits… staff scheduling… Enable supervisors to view time-off requests and approve or deny them directly through the Scheduled Benefit Requests portlet”; (Swierz, [0080]), “FIG. 37, the invention may include Staff Workflow and Management dashboard schedule portlets. Staff Dashboard Schedule portlet shows all of the items assigned to an individual, or manager, in a day layout…Scheduled Benefit Requests allows a staff member to enter a benefit request and it is electronically routed to the Supervisor's dashboard, the supervisor then opens the request and approves/denies the request…”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the calendar display in Krucek to include the dashboard limitations as taught by Swierz. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of predicting and detecting time intervals for an entity to perform QM tasks during the slack periods in Krucek (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of processing staff and engagement related data for use in tracking availability, expertise, experience, performance and other staff criteria and engagement related data and for managing staffing decisions (see Swierz par. 0002).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0201246 [hereinafter Krucek], in view of Daye et al., U.S. Publication No. 2011/0096919 [hereinafter Daye], and further in view of Schwartz et al., U.S. Patent No. 9, 679,265 [hereinafter Schwartz].
Referring to Claim 4, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek teaches providing real-time status information about the availability of each person in the network (see par. 0093), but Krucek does not explicitly teach:
wherein after receiving the agent skill-based time-off request, checking in the database of agents if the agent has one or more skills marked as “unavailable' and when the agent has one or more skills marked as `unavailable', the received agent skill-based time-off request is rejected.
However Schwartz teaches:
wherein after receiving the agent skill-based time-off request, checking in the database of agents if the agent has one or more skills marked as “unavailable' and when the agent has one or more skills marked as `unavailable', the received agent skill-based time-off request is rejected (Schwartz, col. 17, ln. 28-44), “availability thresholds for an assignment could be set so that a request to add that assignment… would be automatically denied if the request was made for a slot had 0% or less overstaffing… Similar results could also be achieved without requiring multiple thresholds. To illustrate, consider a company with a policy that staff members could request no more than a set amount of training per month. Such a company could implement that policy with business rules stating that training assignments should not be listed as available for any staff member in a month where he or she had already reached or exceeded his or her training hour limit”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified real time status in Krucek to include the request limitation as taught by Schwartz. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of predicting and detecting time intervals for an entity to perform QM tasks during the slack periods in Krucek (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of improving workforce management technology to deal with intraday staffing gaps and employee initiated change requests (see Schwartz col. 1 ln. 57-59).
Referring to Claim 5, Krucek in view of Daye teaches the computerized-method of claim 1. Krucek teaches providing real-time status information about the availability of each person in the network (see par. 0093), but Krucek does not explicitly teach:
wherein after receiving the agent skill-based time-off request, checking in the database of agents if the agent has the skill marked as 'unavailable' and when the agent has the skill marked as 'unavailable', the received agent skill-based time-off request is rejected.
However Schwartz teaches:
wherein after receiving the agent skill-based time-off request, checking in the database of agents if the agent has the skill marked as 'unavailable' and when the agent has the skill marked as 'unavailable', the received agent skill-based time-off request is rejected (Schwartz, col. 17, ln. 28-44), “availability thresholds for an assignment could be set so that a request to add that assignment… would be automatically denied if the request was made for a slot had 0% or less overstaffing… Similar results could also be achieved without requiring multiple thresholds. To illustrate, consider a company with a policy that staff members could request no more than a set amount of training per month. Such a company could implement that policy with business rules stating that training assignments should not be listed as available for any staff member in a month where he or she had already reached or exceeded his or her training hour limit”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified real time status in Krucek to include the request limitation as taught by Schwartz. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of predicting and detecting time intervals for an entity to perform QM tasks during the slack periods in Krucek (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of improving workforce management technology to deal with intraday staffing gaps and employee initiated change requests (see Schwartz col. 1 ln. 57-59).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0201246 [hereinafter Krucek], in view of Daye et al., U.S. Publication No. 2011/0096919 [hereinafter Daye], in view of Swierz, III et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0215578 [hereinafter Swierz], and further in view of Schwartz et al., U.S. Patent No. 9, 679,265 [hereinafter Schwartz].
Referring to Claim 6, Krucek in view of Daye in view of Swierz teaches the computerized-method of claim 2. Krucek teaches rules may be based on criterial such as how many excess agents are required for an interval to be considered part of a slack period or what percentage of the interval is required to be overstaffed for the interval to be considered part of a slack period (see par. 0027), but Krucek does not explicitly teach:
wherein the scheduled-agent-availability is marked as “on”, when a scheduled-agent-count is greater than a sum of an agent-requirement-count and an agent requirement threshold, and wherein the scheduled-agent-availability is marked as “off”, when a scheduled-agent-count is lower than the sum of an agent-requirement-count and an agent requirement threshold.
However Schwartz teaches:
wherein the scheduled-agent-availability is marked as “on”, when a scheduled-agent-count is greater than a sum of an agent-requirement-count and an agent requirement threshold, and wherein the scheduled-agent-availability is marked as “off”, when a scheduled-agent-count is lower than the sum of an agent-requirement-count and an agent requirement threshold (Schwartz, [col. 17, ln. 13-36]), “switching between normal and alternative assignments focused on determining whether an alternative assignment should be identified as available so that a user could know he or she could automatically add it to his or her schedule… there could rules setting multiple availability thresholds, with changes in slots with staffing levels meeting or exceeding the most stringent threshold being accepted automatically, and changes in slots with staffing levels which do not exceed the most stringent requiring some level of approval before they could be made. For instance, availability thresholds for an assignment could be set so that a request to add that assignment would be automatically accepted (and the assignment would be identified as “available”) if the request was made for a slot which was overstaffed by 5% or more, would be referred to a manager for approval if it was made for a slot which was overstaffed by less than 5% but more than 0%, and would be automatically denied if the request was made for a slot had 0% or less overstaffing”; (Schwartz, [col. 12, ln. 7-19]), “determining whether a particular alternative activity should be identified in an interface such as shown in FIG. 10 as “available” for a particular user and slot. Thus, in a system implementing the disclosed technology which is configured to indicate that an alternative activity is available for a particular slot if a value representing the staffing level for that slot for the user's current assignment is greater than an availability threshold for the alternative activity for that same slot, business rules could be used to customize those values, so that the interface presented to a user who wishes to modify his or her schedule is at once specific to the user and appropriate in light of the then available business information”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified real time status in Krucek to include the count and threshold limitation as taught by Schwartz. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of predicting and detecting time intervals for an entity to perform QM tasks during the slack periods in Krucek (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of improving workforce management technology to deal with intraday staffing gaps and employee initiated change requests (see Schwartz col. 1 ln. 57-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuoka et al. (US 20230064816 A1) – Systems and methods for automatically throttling active tasks based on the cognitive load of members and assigned representatives are provided. A system receives, in real-time, a set of messages between a member and a representative as the set of messages are being exchanged. The system, based on these messages, automatically detects an indication of a change in the member's cognitive load and identifies the cognitive load based on the tasks being performed for the member, the presentation of these tasks, and the set of messages. If the member's cognitive load exceeds a threshold, the system dynamically selects one or more active tasks for migration to a suspended state. The remaining active tasks are performed for the benefit of the member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights